48hr mooring

[MtB]

13 hours ago, LadyG said:

No one wants to have a confrontation or make demands over every local difficulty

 

I can think of several posters on here who appear to LOVE confrontation and go out of their way to seek it!

 

 

 

[rusty69]

1 hour ago, MtB said:

 

I can think of several posters on here who appear to LOVE confrontation and go out of their way to seek it!

 

 

 

Rubbish! 

 

Wanna fight? 

[MtB]

5 minutes ago, rusty69 said:

Rubbish! 

 

Wanna fight? 

 

Ooo yes please. Don't hit too hard though, there's a good chap...

 

 

[cuthound]

On 24/07/2023 at 13:54, Alan de Enfield said:

 

A surprised Owl !

 

Toowit... 😅🤣

[mark99]

9 hours ago, MtB said:

 

I can think of several posters on here who appear to LOVE confrontation and go out of their way to seek it!

 

 

 

 

 

But I paid for 1/2 hour!

[Jon57]

34 minutes ago, mark99 said:

 

 

But I paid for 1/2 hour!

Oh no you didn’t.

[MtB]

11 minutes ago, Jon57 said:

Oh no you didn’t.

 

Oh yes he did...

 

Hang on, I don't think this is going right!! 

 

 

[Jon57]

19 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

Oh yes he did...

 

Hang on, I don't think this is going right!! 

 

 

Ding. Time up

[MtB]

No it isn't....

[waterworks]

On 24/07/2023 at 21:13, dogless said:

Semantics I know ... but ring C&RT and advise them of your circumstances which make a longer stay necessary.

 

We don't have to doff our cap and ask permission  😁

 

Communication is good though.

 

Rog

Correct, we are legally entitled to overstay if necessary,  we must inform CRT of course and it must be reasonable in the circumstances but its informing not asking for a favour.

 

Thankfully the aggressive and lying patrol officers of 10 years ago have learnt their lesson and CRT are quite reasonable about this now. 

 

( i have to add for the panickers on here this isn't condoning overstaying )

On 24/07/2023 at 18:39, Alan de Enfield said:

 

 

From the very first enabling Acts, the towpath was not to be obstructed; it had to be available to all for the use it was designed for – accordingly, overnight stays would have been the only (perhaps) tolerated use for mooring. In one of the major canal company’s Acts, in fact, pleasure boats were even banned from ANY use of the towpath (and that clause has never, to my knowledge, been explicitly rescinded).

 

Over the latter part of the 20th century, longer temporary use of the towpath for mooring became tolerated on a pragmatic basis, with 14 days fixed upon as a rough guideline for reasons lost in obscurity (for all that BW came up with postulated origins during the Select Committee hearings on the 1990 Bill).

 

Obstruction remains on the statute books as an offence, updated even in the 1995 Act, and overstaying stated times on selected sections has been used with County Court approval to qualify the boat – being thereby regarded as an obstruction - for being moved under s.8(5) of the 1983 Act. Anything longer than an overnight stay, as I see it, is simply permissive – with the exception of boats without home moorings, for whom only, the right to 14 days (or more if circumstances dictate) is enshrined in law.

Source : Nigel Moore (RIP)

 

 

 

Be very careful about how much you rock the boat >..................................

 

 

 

What you quoted refers to another context than reduced time limits, NM posted a long explanation of why CRT has no powers to do so. 

[Mike Todd]

3 hours ago, waterworks said:

Correct, we are legally entitled to overstay if necessary,  we must inform CRT of course and it must be reasonable in the circumstances but its informing not asking for a favour.

 

Thankfully the aggressive and lying patrol officers of 10 years ago have learnt their lesson and CRT are quite reasonable about this now. 

 

( i have to add for the panickers on here this isn't condoning overstaying )

What you quoted refers to another context than reduced time limits, NM posted a long explanation of why CRT has no powers to do so. 

You draw an unjustified conclusion (even if ultimately you prove to be correct): just because CaRT do not have explicit powers to designate some places as limited stay does not mean that they do not have the power indirectly.

 

In particular, they are legally able to rely on such general matters as contract law and any agreement that a boater may have entered into with CaRT. More especially, if a boater has signed such a contract (eg in the process of obtaining a licence) then any conditions therein are legally binding and, as with anyone, CaRT are permitted to offer such T&Cs as they see fit, subject to the fact that the other party ie the boater is not obliged to accept them unless they wish to receive whatever the contract implies.

 

This brings us back to the perennial question of what power permits CaRT to refuse a licence absent such a contractual agreement. There is room for debate but it does seem that most people accept the most reasonable interpretation which is that CaRT is able to do that. Of course, in so doing, they appear to negate the principle of the legislation that only certain conditions have to be met for a licence to be mandated. (All this begins to look like the current banking issue!) But again, you have to take all of the legislation in the round and see whether other more general permissions can be considered to cover the T&Cs. But there is no doubt, however, that if you have signed them then you are bound by them. If you don't sign them then good luck in getting your licence issued as, again, there is no doubt that absent a licence you cannot use the canal network!

[waterworks]

1 hour ago, Mike Todd said:

You draw an unjustified conclusion (even if ultimately you prove to be correct): just because CaRT do not have explicit powers to designate some places as limited stay does not mean that they do not have the power indirectly.

 

In particular, they are legally able to rely on such general matters as contract law and any agreement that a boater may have entered into with CaRT. More especially, if a boater has signed such a contract (eg in the process of obtaining a licence) then any conditions therein are legally binding and, as with anyone, CaRT are permitted to offer such T&Cs as they see fit, subject to the fact that the other party ie the boater is not obliged to accept them unless they wish to receive whatever the contract implies.

 

This brings us back to the perennial question of what power permits CaRT to refuse a licence absent such a contractual agreement. There is room for debate but it does seem that most people accept the most reasonable interpretation which is that CaRT is able to do that. Of course, in so doing, they appear to negate the principle of the legislation that only certain conditions have to be met for a licence to be mandated. (All this begins to look like the current banking issue!) But again, you have to take all of the legislation in the round and see whether other more general permissions can be considered to cover the T&Cs. But there is no doubt, however, that if you have signed them then you are bound by them. If you don't sign them then good luck in getting your licence issued as, again, there is no doubt that absent a licence you cannot use the canal network!

Nope, the fundemental mistake in your second paragraph is that no one is legally bound by unlawful terms or conditions whether singed or  otherwise, on oath , in blood or 24 c gold ink,  any terms and conditions you sign up to on the standard licence application form that are not statutory are not binding and unenforceable *, since the only remedy would be to not issue or revoke your licence and that would contravene the law,  no contract can overide statute is a principle of the law , so no terms or conditions that CRT invent can overide the standard licence conditions, which garentee you a licence if you meet the 3 conditions ( plus payment ) in sect 17 of the 1995 act. 

 

Breach of any bylaw doesn't give any authority for CRT to revoke your licence either, the remedy is a fine, nothing else. 

 

*If you don't beleive me then here's a quote from BW legal Council in parliment.

 

" (Licence T&C’s )“is not a legally enforceable document. It is merely advice which we give to our boaters.”

 “what is the remedy for a breach of condition”? 

 

 ".... We have no remedy for breach of the code conditions at all . . .” 

 

 

Like I keep repeating, the standard licence is statutory and not a contract, it was made that way to give everyone a fair licence application process that BW / CRT cannot arbitrarily decide who get a licence or not.  Boaters that now think it's a contract because of the false statements on the licence application form are throwing away the rights to a fair licencing parliament gave them in 1995. 

[Alan de Enfield]

13 minutes ago, waterworks said:

*If you don't beleive me then here's a quote from BW legal Council in parliment.

 

" (Licence T&C’s )“is not a legally enforceable document. It is merely advice which we give to our boaters.”

 “what is the remedy for a breach of condition”? 

 

 ".... We have no remedy for breach of the code conditions at all . . .” 

 

And the same council stated in court

 

....................justified his claim that an internal BW memo superceded an Act of Parliament, by reason of its later date.

It left the barrister nonplussed. All he could come out with once back on his chair, was – “Oh, so BW have declared UDI have they?”

[Tacet]

31 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

And the same council stated in court

 

....................justified his claim that an internal BW memo superceded an Act of Parliament, by reason of its later date.

It left the barrister nonplussed. All he could come out with once back on his chair, was – “Oh, so BW have declared UDI have they?”

The quote does not even assert that the statement was made by Counsel.  If was anybody, it was an employee.

[Paul C]

3 hours ago, Mike Todd said:

You draw an unjustified conclusion (even if ultimately you prove to be correct): just because CaRT do not have explicit powers to designate some places as limited stay does not mean that they do not have the power indirectly.

 

 

AIUI they DO have explicit powers to do so, Transport Act 1962 (but I can't remember which section).

 

Again, its one of those areas of law theorised a lot on internet forums but has never been tested in court.

[ditchcrawler]

20 minutes ago, Paul C said:

 

AIUI they DO have explicit powers to do so, Transport Act 1962 (but I can't remember which section).

 

Again, its one of those areas of law theorised a lot on internet forums but has never been tested in court.

And I don't plan to be the one to see them in court.

[waterworks]

3 hours ago, Paul C said:

 

AIUI they DO have explicit powers to do so, Transport Act 1962 (but I can't remember which section).

 

Again, its one of those areas of law theorised a lot on internet forums but has never been tested in court.

You mean this

 

Section 43

 

(3) Subject to this Act and to any such enactment as is PART III

mentioned in the last foregoing subsection, the Boards shall

have power to demand, take and recover such charges for their

services and facilities, and to make the use of those services

and facilities subject to such terms and conditions, as they think fit.

 

The claim about this CRT now make only started after 1995 by my knowledge , before then and back to 1962 BW never claimed these powers or used them and if they did have them the 1995 act would have been unnecessary,  that's why it's not credible to me take it out of context and at face value . That interpretation doesn't fit with anything BW has ever done and they were there when it was enacted, CRT wasn't.

 

I don't see how BW can take the 1995 act though parliament to set out licence conditions then go back to a previous act and claim they already had the powers to set their own licence conditions, which they never used. You could also argue the 95 act in regards of licensing makes the 62 act superceded , you can't have two opposing pieces of legislation for the same licences ?

 

Nigel Moore refuted this claim in detail but its over my head , I can only see the Common sense interpretation of it which is it was badly written and not clear to its context. It needs to be legally reviewed but won't be. 

 

 

[nbfiresprite]

On 23/07/2023 at 12:53, Alan de Enfield said:

 

 

C&RTs telephone answering service had been subcontracted to the same company who answer the emergency services calls.

The operator can be anywhere in the country.

 

When we lived in Wales I had a trailer stolen, called the Police and told them what had happened  (that took so long the trailer would be 50 miles away) and they asked me to spell all the names I had mentioned - I asked where she was located and she was in Inverness - no wonder she struggled with the Welsh village  and road names.

 

When I dialed 999 on Monday for a fire engine to put out the boat fire under the bypass bridge. I was put through to the Belfast control centre where I had trouble understand person I was talking too. Who had trouble beliving that there is a town called March, she kept telling me that she did not need the month. 

Edited July 28, 2023 by nbfiresprite

[LadyG]

1 hour ago, nbfiresprite said:

 

When I dialed 999 on Monday for  fire engine to put out the boat fire under the bypass bridge. I was put through to the Belfast control centre where I had trouble understand person I was talking too. Who had trouble beliving that there is a town called March, she kept telling me that she did not need the month. 

I had the same trying to give my address as Stow in the Wold to an answering service based in India, I think. The guy was polite, and obviously concerned that I would use The World as part of my address, phonetics did not deter him, in the end I'm afraid I was somewhat short with him.

[Stroudwater1]

3 hours ago, LadyG said:

I had the same trying to give my address as Stow in the Wold to an answering service based in India, I think. The guy was polite, and obviously concerned that I would use The World as part of my address, phonetics did not deter him, in the end I'm afraid I was somewhat short with him.

TBF Im not surprised that the guy couldn’t find it as it’s Stow-ON-the-Wold.  🤣😉  

 

Perhaps it’s  a hamlet in the few miles  between Stow-on-the-Wold and Moreton-in-Marsh? 

 

 

[Paul C]

7 hours ago, waterworks said:

You mean this

 

Section 43

 

(3) Subject to this Act and to any such enactment as is PART III

mentioned in the last foregoing subsection, the Boards shall

have power to demand, take and recover such charges for their

services and facilities, and to make the use of those services

and facilities subject to such terms and conditions, as they think fit.

 

The claim about this CRT now make only started after 1995 by my knowledge , before then and back to 1962 BW never claimed these powers or used them and if they did have them the 1995 act would have been unnecessary,  that's why it's not credible to me take it out of context and at face value . That interpretation doesn't fit with anything BW has ever done and they were there when it was enacted, CRT wasn't.

 

Not claiming the powers previously, doesn't preclude their use in the future.

 

7 hours ago, waterworks said:

 

I don't see how BW can take the 1995 act though parliament to set out licence conditions then go back to a previous act and claim they already had the powers to set their own licence conditions, which they never used. You could also argue the 95 act in regards of licensing makes the 62 act superceded , you can't have two opposing pieces of legislation for the same licences ?

 

I don't see how a future act repeals a previous act, unless it specifically says that it repeals that act. The terms and conditions they might wish to impose on some facilities are different to the detail of the 1995 act so they don't oppose anyway.

 

Basically, its a fairly simple argument: if rings or bank improvement is provided (a service), then CRT can limit it to 48hrs (terms and conditions imposed).

 

7 hours ago, waterworks said:

Nigel Moore refuted this claim in detail but its over my head , I can only see the Common sense interpretation of it which is it was badly written and not clear to its context. It needs to be legally reviewed but won't be. 

 

 

 

Nigel Moore was wrong as well as right, in a lot of his legal interpretations.

[Mike Todd]

16 hours ago, waterworks said:

Nope, the fundemental mistake in your second paragraph is that no one is legally bound by unlawful terms or conditions whether singed or  otherwise, on oath , in blood or 24 c gold ink,  any terms and conditions you sign up to on the standard licence application form that are not statutory are not binding and unenforceable *, since the only remedy would be to not issue or revoke your licence and that would contravene the law,  no contract can overide statute is a principle of the law , so no terms or conditions that CRT invent can overide the standard licence conditions, which garentee you a licence if you meet the 3 conditions ( plus payment ) in sect 17 of the 1995 act. 

 

Breach of any bylaw doesn't give any authority for CRT to revoke your licence either, the remedy is a fine, nothing else. 

 

*If you don't beleive me then here's a quote from BW legal Council in parliment.

 

" (Licence T&C’s )“is not a legally enforceable document. It is merely advice which we give to our boaters.”

 “what is the remedy for a breach of condition”? 

 

 ".... We have no remedy for breach of the code conditions at all . . .” 

 

 

Like I keep repeating, the standard licence is statutory and not a contract, it was made that way to give everyone a fair licence application process that BW / CRT cannot arbitrarily decide who get a licence or not.  Boaters that now think it's a contract because of the false statements on the licence application form are throwing away the rights to a fair licencing parliament gave them in 1995. 

And so you refused to sign? Do tell . . .

[enigmatic]

3 hours ago, Paul C said:

I don't see how a future act repeals a previous act, unless it specifically says that it repeals that act. The terms and conditions they might wish to impose on some facilities are different to the detail of the 1995 act so they don't oppose anyway.

 

Basically, its a fairly simple argument: if rings or bank improvement is provided (a service), then CRT can limit it to 48hrs (terms and conditions imposed).

 

Yep.

Or to put it another way, when the 1995 Act introduced a licence requirement and charge which you were obliged to pay regardless of how much or how little you used their facilities, I don't think the intention was to abolish all other rules and charges so licence-holders could self-operate the Anderton Boat lift free of charge, stay for free on CRT-owned permanent mooring sites or indeed stay for free on a mooring the CRT has designated as costing £25 a night for stays beyond the first 48 hours.

 

I'm more inclined to believe the other argument attributed to Nigel which Alan posted on the previous page: that the 14 day stays (or longer than break-your-journey-overnight stays) tolerated on towpaths elsewhere aren't any sort of legal right, just an established custom which CRT have decided to permit licence holders to follow...

 

[Iain_S]

12 hours ago, waterworks said:

You mean this

 

Section 43

 

(3) Subject to this Act and to any such enactment as is PART III

mentioned in the last foregoing subsection, the Boards shall

have power to demand, take and recover such charges for their

services and facilities, and to make the use of those services

and facilities subject to such terms and conditions, as they think fit.

 

The claim about this CRT now make only started after 1995 by my knowledge , before then and back to 1962 BW never claimed these powers or used them and if they did have them the 1995 act would have been unnecessary,  that's why it's not credible to me take it out of context and at face value . That interpretation doesn't fit with anything BW has ever done and they were there when it was enacted, CRT wasn't.

 

I don't see how BW can take the 1995 act though parliament to set out licence conditions then go back to a previous act and claim they already had the powers to set their own licence conditions, which they never used. You could also argue the 95 act in regards of licensing makes the 62 act superceded , you can't have two opposing pieces of legislation for the same licences ?

 

Nigel Moore refuted this claim in detail but its over my head , I can only see the Common sense interpretation of it which is it was badly written and not clear to its context. It needs to be legally reviewed but won't be. 

 

 

The 1962 Transport Act cannot be used to license or set conditions for a licence due to subsection 2, which prohibits the setting of charges where any local enactment prohibits charging. The words are "any local enactment", not "any local enactment which is in force" or "any local enactment which has not been repealed", so includes repealed legislation, such as the original enabling acts, many of which allow private boats to use the canal free of charge.

[Paul C]

7 minutes ago, Iain_S said:

The 1962 Transport Act cannot be used to license or set conditions for a licence due to subsection 2, which prohibits the setting of charges where any local enactment prohibits charging. The words are "any local enactment", not "any local enactment which is in force" or "any local enactment which has not been repealed", so includes repealed legislation, such as the original enabling acts

 

 

Not sure on your interpretation of the wording there. If an act is enacted then repealed, it is no longer enacted. If a car is moving then stopped, it is no longer moving even if it previously was.

 

7 minutes ago, Iain_S said:

 

, many of which allow private boats to use the canal free of charge.

Use of the canal or use of extra services? 

 

Edited July 28, 2023 by Paul C